ibanezfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Guitars with missing images
Hi there. Most of the time when adding a new guitar to the wiki, we try our best to put a nice picture of the model. Generally there is one image close to the guitar description at the top of the page displaying one finish/color, then comes the gallery at the bottom of the page with the full finishes list. Recent models are quite easy to manage since internet remembers everything and google image does miracles. But things get quite complicated when it comes to the pre-internet era, images are rare at best, or simply impossible to find. So no images in this case (unless people use their own, personal photos made by themselves for the oldest models). When a picture is deliberately missing we have 2 options: *Preparing the page with the "normal code", asking for pictures with red links. Like the GRG250DXB page (look at the gallery, 3 red links). It's very easy to handle, once you have found the picture, you click on the red link and you simply follow the steps. *No "pre-written" code on the page, just a memo: RG320FM. In the gallery there's already one picture for the TG (Transparent Gray) finish, then a note asking for the CRS and TL ones. The 1st option is the easiest to handle as no wiki knowledge is required. The 2nd one is more academic but demands a little practice to edit the gallery code. If we keep the idea that a wiki must remain simple enough so that people won't refrain from helping, why don't we cumulate these 2 options? The "pre-prepared" gallery with red link (like GRG250DXB), followed by the memo "officially" asking for pictures (like RG320FM). The general idea is also to keep some consistency all over the wiki, so that all pages with missing images look the same. Please share your ideas (or tell if it is too far-fetched). --KainTGC (talk) 20:13, April 21, 2016 (UTC) ::I don't really have a strong preference for either approach. However, the second option (which uses the template has one small advantage in that it automatically adds the page to the hidden Category:Images missing category. This provides a way to track all the pages that are missing images in case someone decides they want to go through and systematically fix the issue. This category can be manually added (as I have done on GRG250DXB) if the first approach is used. Deejayk (talk) 21:01, April 21, 2016 (UTC) :::I realize you have already added the template on quite a lot of pages already. If you want, you can remove all my "red-links-galleries" to keep consistency on the wiki, I don't really mind either, it's up to you. Thanks for the input about the hidden Category:Images missing, it may help many users in the (very distant) future :p --KainTGC (talk) 21:26, April 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::I'm not all that worried about maintaining complete consistency over something like this. Both approaches are fine, although your redlink approach is probably preferable (for the reasons you mentioned). I'll go ahead and adopt that way (along with manually adding the Category:Images missing) that way we'll have some consistency going forward. I don't think it's really worth going back and "fixing" the pages that are using the template approach. Deejayk (talk) 22:31, April 21, 2016 (UTC)